Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, No. 24528
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | CROSS |
| Citation | 407 S.W.2d 575 |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 24528 |
| Parties | KEARNEY COMMERCIAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Madonna R. DEITER (Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis L. Deiter, deceased), and First National Bank of Liberty, Missouri, Defendants-Respondents. |
Page 575
v.
Madonna R. DEITER (Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis L.
Deiter, deceased), and First National Bank of
Liberty, Missouri, Defendants-Respondents.
Page 576
Sevier & Turnage, Liberty, for appellant.
James, McFarland & Trimble, by James G. Trimble, North Kansas City, for Madonna R. Deiter.
CROSS, Presiding Judge.
Plaintiff Kearney Commercial Bank appeals from a judgment of the circuit court dismissing its petition to invoke the equitable remedy of interpleader by requiring defendant Madonna R. Deiter, Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis L. Deiter, deceased, and defendant First National Bank of Liberty, Missouri, to interplead and litigate their conflicting claims to the sum of $9,700.80, held by plaintiff bank as a deposit to the account of defendant administratrix. The controversy arose upon facts here set out.
Lewis L. Deiter, resident of Clay County, Missouri, died on July 17, 1965, owning property consisting principally of 68 head of cattle and a bank account inventoried as in the amount of $1,977.73, on deposit with defendant First National Bank of Liberty, Missouri, hereinafter sometimes designated as 'First National'. Administration of the estate was duly instituted by application for and issuance of letters of administration to decedent's daughter, Madonna
Page 577
R. Deiter. The 68 head of casttle were sold at private sale (subsequently approved by the probate court) for the sum of $9,468.92, which was deposited in plaintiff bank (sometimes hereinafter referred to as 'Kearney Commercial') to the account of Madonna R. Deiter, as administratrix of her deceased father's estate.Thereafter First National informed Kearney Commercial by letters that it (First National) had a chattel mortgage on certain cattle owned by deceased; that such mortgaged cattle had been sold without mortgagor's consent; that the sale proceeds were on deposit in Kearney Commercial to the credit of Madonna R. Deiter, as administratrix; and, that First National considered itself to have an equitable lien on the deposit and claimed to be the owner thereof. After receipt of this information, Kearney Commercial refused payment of a check drawn by the administratrix on the estate account in the amount of $2,300.00 payable to her mother, Mrs. Lewis L. (Charlotte C.) Deiter, widow of decedent, as and for one year's support allowance previously ordered by the probate court.
Following this refusal to honor her check drawn upon the estate account, the administratrix instituted a proceeding in the probate court to discover assets in the hands of Kearney Commercial under provisions of Section 473.340 V.A.M.S. That proceeding progressed to a hearing in which appearances were made on behalf of Kearney Commercial, the administratrix, and First National, by their respective counsel. Testimony of one witness was heard--that of Cecil Turnage, Kearney Commercial's cashier. He was preliminarily examined by counsel for administratrix and cross examined by counsel for Kearney Commercial and also by counsel for First National. The substance of the cashier's testimony was that there was 'an obligation on behalf of the Kearney Commercial Bank to a depositor under the name of Madonna R. Deiter, Administratrix of the Estate of Lewis L. Deiter, deceased' in the amount of $9,700.80; that Kearney Commercial had refused to pay funds of Charlotte Deiter, widow of decedent, for one year's living allowance on the administratrix' check in the amount of $2300.00 and was still refusing to pay the check because the First National was making claim to the deposit fund as proceeds of a sale of some cattle on which it held a chattel mortgage, by reason of which it had a superior lien on the administratrix' account; that except for such claim by First National Kearney Commercial would have paid the $2300.00 check drawn by administratrix; and, further, that Kearney Commercial had no claim of ownership of any amount of the account.
At the conclusion of the cashier's testimony, counsel for all three parties addressed the court. Counsel for the administratrix moved for summary judgment 'in order to get that money paid to the administratrix'. Counsel for Kearney Commercial informed the court that his client was in the position of a stakeholder, had no claim to the funds, and had no objection to paying the money to 'somebody', but was faced with the claim of the First National and didn't want to have to pay it a second time. Counsel for First National argued to the court against the propriety of the proceeding, admitted that First National's claim gave rise to the controversy, agreed that Kearney Commercial was a mere stakeholder, and requested specific relief from the court as follows:
'Now, if the court does entertain or make a summary judgment at this time in connection with this matter, I would like to have the right to insist on another bond being submitted; because I question the validity of that particular bond that's in the estate, right now. I don't recall how much it's for'.
At the conclusion of the hearing the probate court rendered no decision but took the matter under advisement pending receipt of answers to interrogatories the administratrix had propounded to Kearney Commercial.
Page 578
Two days after the hearing above noted Kearney Commercial commenced this suit in circuit court by filing its 'petition in interpleader' said by its author to be 'in conventional form'. The pleading contains allegations of fact substantially as heretofore set out in this opinion, indicating that each of the within named defendants claims to be the owner of the $9,700.80 bank deposit held by plaintiff bank. The petition further alleges that plaintiff is in doubt as to which claimant is entitled to the fund, that plaintiff is ready and willing to pay it over to the person lawfully entitled thereto, that each of the defendants has threatened suit against plaintiff to recover the sum in dispute, and that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law 'and may be subjected to multiple liability for a single liability'. The prayer of the petition is that plaintiff be allowed to bring the $9,700.80 into court and that the defendant administratrix and the defendant First National be required to answer and interplead with each other to determine who is entitled to receive payment of the account held by plaintiff.
Subsequent to service of summons upon it as a party defendant and filing answer in the interpleader action, First National submitted its claim to the Probate Court of Clay County by filing therein its demand for payment of promissory notes executed by decedent aggregating $10,369.15, described as 'secured by a chattel mortgage executed by the deceased'. The demand states that 'all cash assets shown in the inventory and appraisement in said estate as being received from the sale of livestock are subject to the lien of said chattel mortgage inasmuch as said proceeds were received from the sale of livestock included under the terms and provisions of said chattel mortgage'. An additional amount of $1777.73 was claimed in the event offset credits on certain of the notes taken from decedent's account in the stated amount should be disallowed.
Defendant administratrix filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's petition in interpleader on alleged grounds (1) that a prior action was pending in the probate court between the same parties for the same cause and (2) that the circuit court was without jurisdiction because the probate court had exclusive original jurisdiction of probate matters and afforded plaintiff an adequate remedy for its relief under Section 473.357 V.A.M.S. Defendant First National in its answer admitted the allegations of plaintiff's petition, alleged affirmatively that it was entitled to the funds and 'joined with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Broadview Lumber Co., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 91-30593. Adv. No. 93-3018.
...Stanovsky v. Group Enterprise & Constr. Co., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Mo.Ct.App.1986); Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575, 581-82 (Mo.Ct.App.1966); Boeving v. Vandover, 218 S.W.2d 175, 177 (Mo.Ct.App. 1949); Latshaw v. Simpson, 162 S.W.2d 635, 637 Here, the trustee has an a......
-
Craig v. Jo B. Gardner, Inc., No. 60803
...right to press his claim for recovery in the interpleader action, since the latter sounds in equity, Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.App.1966), and quantum meruit is a suit at law. We note that an action for an attorney's lien is one in equity, rather than at law, Fein......
-
Estate of Livingston, No. 11973
...that a discovery proceeding in probate court, ... is a suit or action within the meaning of the law." Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575, 581 (Mo.App.1966). Also see Davis v. Johnson, 332 Mo. 417, 58 S.W.2d 746 (1933), in which an administrator was substituted for a deceased ......
-
General American Life Ins. Co. v. Wiest, No. 39140
...in equity, see, e. g., Plaza Express Co. v. Galloway, 365 Mo. 166, 280 S.W.2d 17 (Mo banc 1955); Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.App.1966). There are only two vital facts which must appear from the averments of the petition of the party seeking interpleader: that perso......
-
In re Broadview Lumber Co., Inc., Bankruptcy No. 91-30593. Adv. No. 93-3018.
...Stanovsky v. Group Enterprise & Constr. Co., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 836, 838 (Mo.Ct.App.1986); Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575, 581-82 (Mo.Ct.App.1966); Boeving v. Vandover, 218 S.W.2d 175, 177 (Mo.Ct.App. 1949); Latshaw v. Simpson, 162 S.W.2d 635, 637 Here, the trustee has an a......
-
Craig v. Jo B. Gardner, Inc., No. 60803
...right to press his claim for recovery in the interpleader action, since the latter sounds in equity, Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.App.1966), and quantum meruit is a suit at law. We note that an action for an attorney's lien is one in equity, rather than at law, Fein......
-
Estate of Livingston, No. 11973
...that a discovery proceeding in probate court, ... is a suit or action within the meaning of the law." Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575, 581 (Mo.App.1966). Also see Davis v. Johnson, 332 Mo. 417, 58 S.W.2d 746 (1933), in which an administrator was substituted for a deceased ......
-
General American Life Ins. Co. v. Wiest, No. 39140
...in equity, see, e. g., Plaza Express Co. v. Galloway, 365 Mo. 166, 280 S.W.2d 17 (Mo banc 1955); Kearney Commercial Bank v. Deiter, 407 S.W.2d 575 (Mo.App.1966). There are only two vital facts which must appear from the averments of the petition of the party seeking interpleader: that perso......